On Sep 27, 8:38 pm, "Bill Miller" <billmillerkt...@worldnet.att.net
wrote:
Hell "Mr. E"... Please see below...

"Mr. Entropy" <egi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:1190920163.750141.255400@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...

Hi, Bill

On Sep 26, 5:40 pm, "Bill Miller" <billmillerkt...@worldnet.att.net
wrote:
Its intensity is proportional to the rate of change of current flow
and
inversely proportional to r (distance) and to cSQR. It is equal to the
negative time derivative of A, the magnetic vector potential. or,
Ek= -dA/dt.

Yes, that's exactly what I was thinking. But that would mean that
Gauss' law, which fails to distinguish E from Ek, is incorrect in the
presence of varying currents. If that's true, wouldn't it be common
knowledge by now?

Up 'til now it has been masked by at least three issues. The first is the
idea that an E field can *cause* an H field. The second is that an H
field
can *cause* an E field. The third is Lentz's law.

The first has been proven empirically false since no one has ever been
able
to measure the Magnetic field "caused" by Displacement Current.

The second has been masked by the assumption that induction is a
magnetic
effect when it is an interaction between the movement of charges as
manifested by Ek.

The third has been *ignored*. This is Lentz's law, an interactive
property
that has remained unexplained/unexplainable since it was determined
empirically way back when. The equations that define Ek show how and why
Lentz's law "works" the way it does.

I haven't read Jefimenko's work, but I've come to the conclusion that
E of a charge moving in a charge distribution acts upon that
distribution which in turn acts back on the charge so creating an E
with components parallel and normal to the charge's motion. That which
is normal to the charge's motion is interpteted as the B component
because it does no work, that which is parallel is the E component
because it does work. Is this similar to what Jefimenko has in mind?

Nope...

I hope this helps. There's lots more, and that's why I was "ragging" on
Benj. Much of the "stuff" that he (and I) are interested in is covered by
Jefimenko's work.

Thanks much for the reference,

You're welcome!

Bill



Mr. E- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"blackhead" <larryhar...@softhome.net> wrote in message

news:1191608697.381957.118940@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...



On Sep 27, 8:38 pm, "Bill Miller" <billmillerkt...@worldnet.att.net
wrote:
Hell "Mr. E"... Please see below...

"Mr. Entropy" <egi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:1190920163.750141.255400@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...

Hi, Bill

On Sep 26, 5:40 pm, "Bill Miller" <billmillerkt...@worldnet.att.net
wrote:
Its intensity is proportional to the rate of change of current flow
and
inversely proportional to r (distance) and to cSQR. It is equal to the
negative time derivative of A, the magnetic vector potential. or,
Ek= -dA/dt.

Yes, that's exactly what I was thinking. But that would mean that
Gauss' law, which fails to distinguish E from Ek, is incorrect in the
presence of varying currents. If that's true, wouldn't it be common
knowledge by now?

Up 'til now it has been masked by at least three issues. The first is the
idea that an E field can *cause* an H field. The second is that an H
field
can *cause* an E field. The third is Lentz's law.

The first has been proven empirically false since no one has ever been
able
to measure the Magnetic field "caused" by Displacement Current.

The second has been masked by the assumption that induction is a
magnetic
effect when it is an interaction between the movement of charges as
manifested by Ek.

The third has been *ignored*. This is Lentz's law, an interactive
property
that has remained unexplained/unexplainable since it was determined
empirically way back when. The equations that define Ek show how and why
Lentz's law "works" the way it does.

I haven't read Jefimenko's work, but I've come to the conclusion that
E of a charge moving in a charge distribution acts upon that
distribution which in turn acts back on the charge so creating an E
with components parallel and normal to the charge's motion. That which
is normal to the charge's motion is interpteted as the B component
because it does no work, that which is parallel is the E component
because it does work. Is this similar to what Jefimenko has in mind?

Nope...

Jefimenko's proposition is that Maxwell's equations are descriptive; not
causative. He maintains Maxwell's independent definitions of E and H and
assumes their properties are pretty much the same as has always been
postulated.

He shows that their causes are charges and the motion of charges. Since both
E and H have the same root causes, this is why a time varying E is always
associated with a time varying H, and vice-versa.

Unfortunately, Jefimenko's work is "equation rich" and no one (that I know
of) has published any simplified versions with diagrams etc.

The only other place to which I can point you would be Wikepedia. Search for
"Jefimenko's Equations." This will at least show you the structure and
layout of the equations.

I hope this helps!

Bill

I hope this helps. There's lots more, and that's why I was "ragging" on
Benj. Much of the "stuff" that he (and I) are interested in is covered by
Jefimenko's work.

Thanks much for the reference,

You're welcome!

Bill

Mr. E- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On 9 Oct, 21:21, "Bill Miller" <billmillerkt...@worldnet.att.net
wrote:



"blackhead" <larryhar...@softhome.net> wrote in message

news:1191608697.381957.118940@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

On Sep 27, 8:38 pm, "Bill Miller" <billmillerkt...@worldnet.att.net
wrote:
Hell "Mr. E"... Please see below...

"Mr. Entropy" <egi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:1190920163.750141.255400@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...

Hi, Bill

On Sep 26, 5:40 pm, "Bill Miller" <billmillerkt...@worldnet.att.net
wrote:
Its intensity is proportional to the rate of change of current flow
and
inversely proportional to r (distance) and to cSQR. It is equal to the
negative time derivative of A, the magnetic vector potential. or,
Ek= -dA/dt.

Yes, that's exactly what I was thinking. But that would mean that
Gauss' law, which fails to distinguish E from Ek, is incorrect in the
presence of varying currents. If that's true, wouldn't it be common
knowledge by now?

Up 'til now it has been masked by at least three issues. The first is the
idea that an E field can *cause* an H field. The second is that an H
field
can *cause* an E field. The third is Lentz's law.

The first has been proven empirically false since no one has ever been
able
to measure the Magnetic field "caused" by Displacement Current.

The second has been masked by the assumption that induction is a
magnetic
effect when it is an interaction between the movement of charges as
manifested by Ek.

The third has been *ignored*. This is Lentz's law, an interactive
property
that has remained unexplained/unexplainable since it was determined
empirically way back when. The equations that define Ek show how and why
Lentz's law "works" the way it does.

I haven't read Jefimenko's work, but I've come to the conclusion that
E of a charge moving in a charge distribution acts upon that
distribution which in turn acts back on the charge so creating an E
with components parallel and normal to the charge's motion. That which
is normal to the charge's motion is interpteted as the B component
because it does no work, that which is parallel is the E component
because it does work. Is this similar to what Jefimenko has in mind?

Nope...

Jefimenko's proposition is that Maxwell's equations are descriptive; not
causative. He maintains Maxwell's independent definitions of E and H and
assumes their properties are pretty much the same as has always been
postulated.

He shows that their causes are charges and the motion of charges. Since both
E and H have the same root causes, this is why a time varying E is always
associated with a time varying H, and vice-versa.

Unfortunately, Jefimenko's work is "equation rich" and no one (that I know
of) has published any simplified versions with diagrams etc.

The only other place to which I can point you would be Wikepedia. Search for
"Jefimenko's Equations." This will at least show you the structure and
layout of the equations.

I hope this helps!

Bill

His equations don't look as useful as the Lienard-Wiechert potentials
or E and B for a moving charge.

I hope this helps. There's lots more, and that's why I was "ragging" on
Benj. Much of the "stuff" that he (and I) are interested in is covered by
Jefimenko's work.

Thanks much for the reference,

You're welcome!

Bill

Mr. E- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well put, Bill. It's hard to get people to think about the physics
when they are only examined on the math.

On 9 Oct, 21:21, "Bill Miller" <billmillerkt...@worldnet.att.net
wrote:
"blackhead" <larryhar...@softhome.net> wrote in message

news:1191608697.381957.118940@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...



On Sep 27, 8:38 pm, "Bill Miller" <billmillerkt...@worldnet.att.net
wrote:
Hell "Mr. E"... Please see below...

"Mr. Entropy" <egi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:1190920163.750141.255400@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...

Hi, Bill

On Sep 26, 5:40 pm, "Bill Miller" <billmillerkt...@worldnet.att.net
wrote:
Its intensity is proportional to the rate of change of current flow
and
inversely proportional to r (distance) and to cSQR. It is equal to
the
negative time derivative of A, the magnetic vector potential. or,
Ek= -dA/dt.

Yes, that's exactly what I was thinking. But that would mean that
Gauss' law, which fails to distinguish E from Ek, is incorrect in
the
presence of varying currents. If that's true, wouldn't it be common
knowledge by now?

Up 'til now it has been masked by at least three issues. The first is
the
idea that an E field can *cause* an H field. The second is that an H
field
can *cause* an E field. The third is Lentz's law.

The first has been proven empirically false since no one has ever been
able
to measure the Magnetic field "caused" by Displacement Current.

The second has been masked by the assumption that induction is a
magnetic
effect when it is an interaction between the movement of charges as
manifested by Ek.

The third has been *ignored*. This is Lentz's law, an interactive
property
that has remained unexplained/unexplainable since it was determined
empirically way back when. The equations that define Ek show how and
why
Lentz's law "works" the way it does.

I haven't read Jefimenko's work, but I've come to the conclusion that
E of a charge moving in a charge distribution acts upon that
distribution which in turn acts back on the charge so creating an E
with components parallel and normal to the charge's motion. That which
is normal to the charge's motion is interpteted as the B component
because it does no work, that which is parallel is the E component
because it does work. Is this similar to what Jefimenko has in mind?

Nope...

Jefimenko's proposition is that Maxwell's equations are descriptive; not
causative. He maintains Maxwell's independent definitions of E and H and
assumes their properties are pretty much the same as has always been
postulated.

He shows that their causes are charges and the motion of charges. Since
both
E and H have the same root causes, this is why a time varying E is always
associated with a time varying H, and vice-versa.

Unfortunately, Jefimenko's work is "equation rich" and no one (that I
know
of) has published any simplified versions with diagrams etc.

The only other place to which I can point you would be Wikepedia. Search
for
"Jefimenko's Equations." This will at least show you the structure and
layout of the equations.

I hope this helps!

Bill

His equations don't look as useful as the Lienard-Wiechert potentials
or E and B for a moving charge.

I hope this helps. There's lots more, and that's why I was "ragging"
on
Benj. Much of the "stuff" that he (and I) are interested in is covered
by
Jefimenko's work.

Thanks much for the reference,

You're welcome!

Bill

Mr. E- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I haven't read Jefimenko's work, but I've come to the conclusion that
E of a charge moving in a charge distribution acts upon that
distribution which in turn acts back on the charge so creating an E
with components parallel and normal to the charge's motion. That which
is normal to the charge's motion is interpteted as the B component
because it does no work, that which is parallel is the E component
because it does work. Is this similar to what Jefimenko has in mind?

On Oct 9, 7:04 pm, blackhead <larryhar...@softhome.net> wrote:





On 9 Oct, 21:21, "Bill Miller" <billmillerkt...@worldnet.att.net
wrote:

"blackhead" <larryhar...@softhome.net> wrote in message

news:1191608697.381957.118940@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

On Sep 27, 8:38 pm, "Bill Miller" <billmillerkt...@worldnet.att.net
wrote:
Hell "Mr. E"... Please see below...

"Mr. Entropy" <egi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:1190920163.750141.255400@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...

Hi, Bill

On Sep 26, 5:40 pm, "Bill Miller" <billmillerkt...@worldnet.att.net
wrote:
Its intensity is proportional to the rate of change of current flow
and
inversely proportional to r (distance) and to cSQR. It is equal to the
negative time derivative of A, the magnetic vector potential. or,
Ek= -dA/dt.

Yes, that's exactly what I was thinking. But that would mean that
Gauss' law, which fails to distinguish E from Ek, is incorrect in the
presence of varying currents. If that's true, wouldn't it be common
knowledge by now?

Up 'til now it has been masked by at least three issues. The first is the
idea that an E field can *cause* an H field. The second is that an H
field
can *cause* an E field. The third is Lentz's law.

The first has been proven empirically false since no one has ever been
able
to measure the Magnetic field "caused" by Displacement Current.

The second has been masked by the assumption that induction is a
magnetic
effect when it is an interaction between the movement of charges as
manifested by Ek.

The third has been *ignored*. This is Lentz's law, an interactive
property
that has remained unexplained/unexplainable since it was determined
empirically way back when. The equations that define Ek show how and why
Lentz's law "works" the way it does.

I haven't read Jefimenko's work, but I've come to the conclusion that
E of a charge moving in a charge distribution acts upon that
distribution which in turn acts back on the charge so creating an E
with components parallel and normal to the charge's motion. That which
is normal to the charge's motion is interpteted as the B component
because it does no work, that which is parallel is the E component
because it does work. Is this similar to what Jefimenko has in mind?

Nope...

Jefimenko's proposition is that Maxwell's equations are descriptive; not
causative. He maintains Maxwell's independent definitions of E and H and
assumes their properties are pretty much the same as has always been
postulated.

He shows that their causes are charges and the motion of charges. Since both
E and H have the same root causes, this is why a time varying E is always
associated with a time varying H, and vice-versa.

Unfortunately, Jefimenko's work is "equation rich" and no one (that I know
of) has published any simplified versions with diagrams etc.

The only other place to which I can point you would be Wikepedia. Search for
"Jefimenko's Equations." This will at least show you the structure and
layout of the equations.

I hope this helps!

Bill

His equations don't look as useful as the Lienard-Wiechert potentials
or E and B for a moving charge.

I hope this helps. There's lots more, and that's why I was "ragging" on
Benj. Much of the "stuff" that he (and I) are interested in is covered by
Jefimenko's work.

Thanks much for the reference,

You're welcome!

Bill

Mr. E- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well put, Bill. It's hard to get people to think about the physics
when they are only examined on the math.
The L-W potentials are derived using a 'small' volume filled with
electric fluid (popularly known as 'charge density'). The 'back' of
this volume reacts to the 'target' (field) point at a slightly
different time than the 'front', hence the retarded factor.

Finally
the limit is taken of shrinking the volume to zero for a 'point'
charge. Good luck trying to derive this result, ab initio, from the
defininition of a real point-particle, with no finite size, like the
electron.- Hide quoted text -

blackhead wrote:

I haven't read Jefimenko's work, but I've come to the conclusion that
E of a charge moving in a charge distribution acts upon that
distribution which in turn acts back on the charge so creating an E
with components parallel and normal to the charge's motion. That which
is normal to the charge's motion is interpteted as the B component
because it does no work, that which is parallel is the E component
because it does work. Is this similar to what Jefimenko has in mind?

One important item Jefimenko points out is that when you have an array
of moving time-dependent charges, Newton's law of action-reaction may
no longer hold true. There are various cases where the force one
charge creates on another is NOT identically reflected back to the
first charge by the motion of the second charge. Conservation of
momentum, on the other hand always DOES hold true even in regions of
space where there are two equal but opposite fields that cancel and
appear to give a space with no field present. The whole thing is
rather mathematical so for a proof and total understanding you'll have
to read Jefimenko's actual derivations.

On 12 Oct, 07:04, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
The whole thing is
rather mathematical so for a proof and total understanding you'll have
to read Jefimenko's actual derivations.

Sounds identical to what I've been thinking. I'm saying that this
retarded reacting force can be decomposed into two parts normal (the B
component) and parallel (the induced E component) to the original
motion of the acting charge. B and the induced E are the components of
the retarded E of a reacting charge.

On 10 Oct, 20:01, maxwell <s...@shaw.ca> wrote:



On Oct 9, 7:04 pm, blackhead <larryhar...@softhome.net> wrote:

On 9 Oct, 21:21, "Bill Miller" <billmillerkt...@worldnet.att.net
wrote:

"blackhead" <larryhar...@softhome.net> wrote in message

news:1191608697.381957.118940@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

On Sep 27, 8:38 pm, "Bill Miller" <billmillerkt...@worldnet.att.net
wrote:
Hell "Mr. E"... Please see below...

"Mr. Entropy" <egi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:1190920163.750141.255400@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...

Hi, Bill

On Sep 26, 5:40 pm, "Bill Miller" <billmillerkt...@worldnet.att.net
wrote:
Its intensity is proportional to the rate of change of current flow
and
inversely proportional to r (distance) and to cSQR. It is equal to the
negative time derivative of A, the magnetic vector potential. or,
Ek= -dA/dt.

Yes, that's exactly what I was thinking. But that would mean that
Gauss' law, which fails to distinguish E from Ek, is incorrect in the
presence of varying currents. If that's true, wouldn't it be common
knowledge by now?

Up 'til now it has been masked by at least three issues. The first is the
idea that an E field can *cause* an H field. The second is that an H
field
can *cause* an E field. The third is Lentz's law.

The first has been proven empirically false since no one has ever been
able
to measure the Magnetic field "caused" by Displacement Current.

The second has been masked by the assumption that induction is a
magnetic
effect when it is an interaction between the movement of charges as
manifested by Ek.

The third has been *ignored*. This is Lentz's law, an interactive
property
that has remained unexplained/unexplainable since it was determined
empirically way back when. The equations that define Ek show how and why
Lentz's law "works" the way it does.

I haven't read Jefimenko's work, but I've come to the conclusion that
E of a charge moving in a charge distribution acts upon that
distribution which in turn acts back on the charge so creating an E
with components parallel and normal to the charge's motion. That which
is normal to the charge's motion is interpteted as the B component
because it does no work, that which is parallel is the E component
because it does work. Is this similar to what Jefimenko has in mind?

Nope...

Jefimenko's proposition is that Maxwell's equations are descriptive; not
causative. He maintains Maxwell's independent definitions of E and H and
assumes their properties are pretty much the same as has always been
postulated.

He shows that their causes are charges and the motion of charges. Since both
E and H have the same root causes, this is why a time varying E is always
associated with a time varying H, and vice-versa.

Unfortunately, Jefimenko's work is "equation rich" and no one (that I know
of) has published any simplified versions with diagrams etc.

The only other place to which I can point you would be Wikepedia. Search for
"Jefimenko's Equations." This will at least show you the structure and
layout of the equations.

I hope this helps!

Bill

His equations don't look as useful as the Lienard-Wiechert potentials
or E and B for a moving charge.

I hope this helps. There's lots more, and that's why I was "ragging" on
Benj. Much of the "stuff" that he (and I) are interested in is covered by
Jefimenko's work.

Thanks much for the reference,

You're welcome!

Bill

Mr. E- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well put, Bill. It's hard to get people to think about the physics
when they are only examined on the math.
The L-W potentials are derived using a 'small' volume filled with
electric fluid (popularly known as 'charge density'). The 'back' of
this volume reacts to the 'target' (field) point at a slightly
different time than the 'front', hence the retarded factor.

Who's point are you answering?

The back of the charge reacting to the observation point is just plain
stupid.

There is a retarded factor because the contributions to the potential
at an observation point for charges moving are different compared to
if the charges were static but at the same positions.

Take two charges q1 @r1, q2 @r2 with r1 > r2, dr = r1 - r2, parallel
and both travelling at velocity v away from and along r1, r2. The
observation point is at r = 0. The potential of q1 that arrives at q2
is from a retarded time t' = dr/(v + c). This is when q1 was at r2 +
dr - vt' = r2 + dr - v dr/(v + c) = r2 + dr/(1 + B) where B = v/c. So
the potential at the observation point can be replaced by an
equivalent static q1 and q2 seperated by dr/(1 + B), equivalent to
increasing the charge density by (1 + B) at r.

Finally
the limit is taken of shrinking the volume to zero for a 'point'
charge. Good luck trying to derive this result, ab initio, from the
defininition of a real point-particle, with no finite size, like the
electron.- Hide quoted text -

Yes, the factor is still there as the size tends towards zero for an
electron.

- Show quoted text -

On Oct 12, 4:23 pm, blackhead <larryhar...@softhome.net> wrote:





On 10 Oct, 20:01, maxwell <s...@shaw.ca> wrote:

On Oct 9, 7:04 pm, blackhead <larryhar...@softhome.net> wrote:

On 9 Oct, 21:21, "Bill Miller" <billmillerkt...@worldnet.att.net
wrote:

"blackhead" <larryhar...@softhome.net> wrote in message

news:1191608697.381957.118940@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

On Sep 27, 8:38 pm, "Bill Miller" <billmillerkt...@worldnet.att.net
wrote:
Hell "Mr. E"... Please see below...

"Mr. Entropy" <egi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:1190920163.750141.255400@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...

Hi, Bill

On Sep 26, 5:40 pm, "Bill Miller" <billmillerkt...@worldnet.att.net
wrote:
Its intensity is proportional to the rate of change of current flow
and
inversely proportional to r (distance) and to cSQR. It is equal to the
negative time derivative of A, the magnetic vector potential. or,
Ek= -dA/dt.

Yes, that's exactly what I was thinking. But that would mean that
Gauss' law, which fails to distinguish E from Ek, is incorrect in the
presence of varying currents. If that's true, wouldn't it be common
knowledge by now?

Up 'til now it has been masked by at least three issues. The first is the
idea that an E field can *cause* an H field. The second is that an H
field
can *cause* an E field. The third is Lentz's law.

The first has been proven empirically false since no one has ever been
able
to measure the Magnetic field "caused" by Displacement Current.

The second has been masked by the assumption that induction is a
magnetic
effect when it is an interaction between the movement of charges as
manifested by Ek.

The third has been *ignored*. This is Lentz's law, an interactive
property
that has remained unexplained/unexplainable since it was determined
empirically way back when. The equations that define Ek show how and why
Lentz's law "works" the way it does.

I haven't read Jefimenko's work, but I've come to the conclusion that
E of a charge moving in a charge distribution acts upon that
distribution which in turn acts back on the charge so creating an E
with components parallel and normal to the charge's motion. That which
is normal to the charge's motion is interpteted as the B component
because it does no work, that which is parallel is the E component
because it does work. Is this similar to what Jefimenko has in mind?

Nope...

Jefimenko's proposition is that Maxwell's equations are descriptive; not
causative. He maintains Maxwell's independent definitions of E and H and
assumes their properties are pretty much the same as has always been
postulated.

He shows that their causes are charges and the motion of charges. Since both
E and H have the same root causes, this is why a time varying E is always
associated with a time varying H, and vice-versa.

Unfortunately, Jefimenko's work is "equation rich" and no one (that I know
of) has published any simplified versions with diagrams etc.

The only other place to which I can point you would be Wikepedia. Search for
"Jefimenko's Equations." This will at least show you the structure and
layout of the equations.

I hope this helps!

Bill

His equations don't look as useful as the Lienard-Wiechert potentials
or E and B for a moving charge.

I hope this helps. There's lots more, and that's why I was "ragging" on
Benj. Much of the "stuff" that he (and I) are interested in is covered by
Jefimenko's work.

Thanks much for the reference,

You're welcome!

Bill

Mr. E- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well put, Bill. It's hard to get people to think about the physics
when they are only examined on the math.
The L-W potentials are derived using a 'small' volume filled with
electric fluid (popularly known as 'charge density'). The 'back' of
this volume reacts to the 'target' (field) point at a slightly
different time than the 'front', hence the retarded factor.

Who's point are you answering?

The back of the charge reacting to the observation point is just plain
stupid.

There is a retarded factor because the contributions to the potential
at an observation point for charges moving are different compared to
if the charges were static but at the same positions.

Take two charges q1 @r1, q2 @r2 with r1 > r2, dr = r1 - r2, parallel
and both travelling at velocity v away from and along r1, r2. The
observation point is at r = 0. The potential of q1 that arrives at q2
is from a retarded time t' = dr/(v + c). This is when q1 was at r2 +
dr - vt' = r2 + dr - v dr/(v + c) = r2 + dr/(1 + B) where B = v/c. So
the potential at the observation point can be replaced by an
equivalent static q1 and q2 seperated by dr/(1 + B), equivalent to
increasing the charge density by (1 + B) at r.

Finally
the limit is taken of shrinking the volume to zero for a 'point'
charge. Good luck trying to derive this result, ab initio, from the
defininition of a real point-particle, with no finite size, like the
electron.- Hide quoted text -

Yes, the factor is still there as the size tends towards zero for an
electron.

- Show quoted text -

Please learn to read. I wrote "ab initio" not "tends towards zero".
This was my point that Maxwellian EM is based on extended charge
definitions not point charges; ah well, they just don't teach Latin
anymore.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

retarded reacting force can be decomposed into two parts normal (the B
component) and parallel (the induced E component) to the original
motion of the acting charge. B and the induced E are the components of
the retarded E of a reacting charge.

Yes that does sound identical. However Jefimenko seems to break the
forces down into more than two parts,

but as I said, it's best to look
at his actual equations and illustrations to see what he did. At this
point I'm really not the one to ask what he did.

Benj

El Snippo
">> Sounds identical to what I've been thinking. I'm saying that this

retarded reacting force can be decomposed into two parts normal (the B
component) and parallel (the induced E component) to the original
motion of the acting charge. B and the induced E are the components of
the retarded E of a reacting charge.

Yes that does sound identical. However Jefimenko seems to break the
forces down into more than two parts,

Jefimenko breaks down both the E and H fields into different components. I
suspect that each component part retains its essential E-ness or H-ness.
However, the shape -- at the very least -- of at least one of the E
components changes fairly dramatically with v. See Appendix 5 of
"Causality."

but as I said, it's best to look
at his actual equations and illustrations to see what he did. At this
point I'm really not the one to ask what he did.

Benj

I agree with Benj. Unfortunately, Jefimenko was quite ill this year and I'm
not sure if he is able to reply/clarify any questions put directly to him.
So...

It looks like we might have to actually read and analyze his work OURSELVES.

#GASP#

Of course, some have suggested that his work is not worthy of study because
he has not reduced it all to Lagrangians (or perhaps, Hamiltonians or maybe
some other ritualized requirement -- like holding the cruciform hilt of his
sword before him as he prays all night at the altar of peace for strength to
smite the unbeliever and suppress and terrify the peasantry.)

Me? I'll take wisdom and sensibility no matter where and how I find it!

Bill Miller

On 13 Oct, 16:39, maxwell <s...@shaw.ca> wrote:



On Oct 12, 4:23 pm, blackhead <larryhar...@softhome.net> wrote:

On 10 Oct, 20:01, maxwell <s...@shaw.ca> wrote:

On Oct 9, 7:04 pm, blackhead <larryhar...@softhome.net> wrote:

On 9 Oct, 21:21, "Bill Miller" <billmillerkt...@worldnet.att.net
wrote:

"blackhead" <larryhar...@softhome.net> wrote in message

news:1191608697.381957.118940@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

On Sep 27, 8:38 pm, "Bill Miller" <billmillerkt...@worldnet.att.net
wrote:
Hell "Mr. E"... Please see below...

"Mr. Entropy" <egi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:1190920163.750141.255400@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...

Hi, Bill

On Sep 26, 5:40 pm, "Bill Miller" <billmillerkt...@worldnet.att.net
wrote:
Its intensity is proportional to the rate of change of current flow
and
inversely proportional to r (distance) and to cSQR. It is equal to the
negative time derivative of A, the magnetic vector potential. or,
Ek= -dA/dt.

Yes, that's exactly what I was thinking. But that would mean that
Gauss' law, which fails to distinguish E from Ek, is incorrect in the
presence of varying currents. If that's true, wouldn't it be common
knowledge by now?

Up 'til now it has been masked by at least three issues. The first is the
idea that an E field can *cause* an H field. The second is that an H
field
can *cause* an E field. The third is Lentz's law.

The first has been proven empirically false since no one has ever been
able
to measure the Magnetic field "caused" by Displacement Current.

The second has been masked by the assumption that induction is a
magnetic
effect when it is an interaction between the movement of charges as
manifested by Ek.

The third has been *ignored*. This is Lentz's law, an interactive
property
that has remained unexplained/unexplainable since it was determined
empirically way back when. The equations that define Ek show how and why
Lentz's law "works" the way it does.

I haven't read Jefimenko's work, but I've come to the conclusion that
E of a charge moving in a charge distribution acts upon that
distribution which in turn acts back on the charge so creating an E
with components parallel and normal to the charge's motion. That which
is normal to the charge's motion is interpteted as the B component
because it does no work, that which is parallel is the E component
because it does work. Is this similar to what Jefimenko has in mind?

Nope...

Jefimenko's proposition is that Maxwell's equations are descriptive; not
causative. He maintains Maxwell's independent definitions of E and H and
assumes their properties are pretty much the same as has always been
postulated.

He shows that their causes are charges and the motion of charges. Since both
E and H have the same root causes, this is why a time varying E is always
associated with a time varying H, and vice-versa.

Unfortunately, Jefimenko's work is "equation rich" and no one (that I know
of) has published any simplified versions with diagrams etc.

The only other place to which I can point you would be Wikepedia. Search for
"Jefimenko's Equations." This will at least show you the structure and
layout of the equations.

I hope this helps!

Bill

His equations don't look as useful as the Lienard-Wiechert potentials
or E and B for a moving charge.

I hope this helps. There's lots more, and that's why I was "ragging" on
Benj. Much of the "stuff" that he (and I) are interested in is covered by
Jefimenko's work.

Thanks much for the reference,

You're welcome!

Bill

Mr. E- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well put, Bill. It's hard to get people to think about the physics
when they are only examined on the math.
The L-W potentials are derived using a 'small' volume filled with
electric fluid (popularly known as 'charge density'). The 'back' of
this volume reacts to the 'target' (field) point at a slightly
different time than the 'front', hence the retarded factor.

Who's point are you answering?

The back of the charge reacting to the observation point is just plain
stupid.

There is a retarded factor because the contributions to the potential
at an observation point for charges moving are different compared to
if the charges were static but at the same positions.

Take two charges q1 @r1, q2 @r2 with r1 > r2, dr = r1 - r2, parallel
and both travelling at velocity v away from and along r1, r2. The
observation point is at r = 0. The potential of q1 that arrives at q2
is from a retarded time t' = dr/(v + c). This is when q1 was at r2 +
dr - vt' = r2 + dr - v dr/(v + c) = r2 + dr/(1 + B) where B = v/c. So
the potential at the observation point can be replaced by an
equivalent static q1 and q2 seperated by dr/(1 + B), equivalent to
increasing the charge density by (1 + B) at r.

Finally
the limit is taken of shrinking the volume to zero for a 'point'
charge. Good luck trying to derive this result, ab initio, from the
defininition of a real point-particle, with no finite size, like the
electron.- Hide quoted text -

Yes, the factor is still there as the size tends towards zero for an
electron.

- Show quoted text -

Please learn to read. I wrote "ab initio" not "tends towards zero".
This was my point that Maxwellian EM is based on extended charge
definitions not point charges; ah well, they just don't teach Latin
anymore.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

My derivation used 2 point charges to show that the (1 + B) factor is
independent of their seperation, dr. I didn't use extended charges.